2009 Supreme(SC) 1287

2009(5) Supreme 506
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.B. Sinha and Cyriac Joseph, JJ.
Pantangi Balarama Venkata Ganesh — Appellant
versus
State of Andhra Pradesh — Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 174 of 2004
Decided on : 23-07-2009

IMPORTANT POINT
While conducting DNA test precautions are required to be taken to ensure preparation of high-molecular-weight DNA complete digestion of the samples with appropriate enzymes, and perfect transfer and hybridization of the blot to obtain distinct bands with appropriate control.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 120-B, 449, 307 read with Sections 147, 148, 149, 506 and Section 27(2), 25(1-A) of the Arms Act – Prosecution of accused persons two in number for causing death of a Member of Parliament from Ongole Constituency in the State of Andhra Pradesh and his gun man by bullet injuries – Conviction by Trial Court – Appeal – High Court while affirming conviction of A1 acquitted A2 – Appeals thereagainst – Instantly not only appellant’s presence had been admitted, fact that he was a member of Peoples War Group also remained undisputed – His participation in the crime with reference to the pink coloured shirt worn by him and his arrest immediately after the occurrence in an injured condition; recovery from him of the pistol and the two cartridges and the evidence of DNA Expert and the Ballistic Expert, held sufficient to prove his participation in the commission of the offence of murder of the deceased, and his gunman and causing injuries to PW-1 and PW-3 – So far as A.2 was concerned, High Court, although ought to have dealt with matter at some more details, but keeping in view fact that it recorded a judgment of acquittal, it was difficult to opine that another view was not possible – A2 was arrested 15 days after the occurrence from a railway platform – The fact that he was driver of the car was sought to be proved by PW-10 and PW-11 – PW-10, however, stated that he was arrested on the same day which was not a fact – PW-11 also could not testify the identity of accused No.2 – No identification parade was held, which could have been held, unlike the case of A 1 as A2 was not in the hospital or at some other place – No recovery had been made from him – The evidence of PW-9 was shaky as she stated that she had not seen the tenants, whom A.2 used to visit by coming in an Ambassador car – Appeals dismissed. (Paras 36 to 51)

       Facts of the Case :

        1. Accused persons two in number were prosecuted herein in the instant case for causing death of a Member of Parliament from Ongole Constituency in the State of Andhra Pradesh and his gun man by bullet injuries. Trial Court convicted accused persons for said offences. On Appeal, High Court while affirming conviction of A1 acquitted A2.

        2. Present appeals have been filed by A1 and State against said judgement.

       Findings of the Court :

        Instantly not only appellant’s presence had been admitted, fact that he was a member of Peoples War Group also remained undisputed. His participation in the crime with reference to the pink coloured shirt worn by him and his arrest immediately after the occurrence in an injured condition; recovery from him of the pistol and the two cartridges and the evidence of DNA Expert and the Ballistic Expert, was held sufficient to prove his participation in the commission of the offence of murder of the deceased, and his gunman and causing injuries to PW-1 and PW-3 . So far as A.2 was concerned, High Court, although ought to have dealt with matter at some more details, but keeping in view fact that it recorded a judgment of acquittal, it was difficult to opine that another view was not possible.A2 was arrested 15 days after the occurrence from a railway platform. The fact that he was driver of the car was sought to be proved by PW.10 and PW-11. PW-10, however, stated that he was arrested on the same day which was not a fact. PW-11 also could not testify the identity of accused No.2. No identification parade was held, which could have been held, unlike the case of A 1 as A2 was not in the hospital or at some other place. No recovery had been made from him. The evidence of PW-9 was shaky as she stated that she had not seen the tenants, whom A.2 used to visit by coming in an Ambassador car. Appeals dismissed.

       Result : Appeals dismissed.